The Link between the Perception of Animal Welfare and the Emotional Response to Pictures of Farm Animals Kept in Intensive and Extensive Husbandry Systems: An Italian Survey
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Questionnaire: “Human Emotions and Animal Husbandry”
- -
- Assigning a score to rate the intensity of ten emotions (anger, joy, sadness, surprise, shame/disappointment, resignation, hope, nostalgia, remorse/guilt, contempt/disgust) felt while watching the photo using a 5-point Likert-type scale (where 0 was the equivalent of an emotion unproven and 5 was the maximum intensity of the emotion felt);
- -
- Reporting their opinion on the level of welfare they attributed to the animals shown in the photo using a 5-point Likert-type scale (very poor, poor good, excellent, not known).
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Participants Demographics and Their Eating Habits
3.2. Human Emotions: The PC “Emotion Quality Axis”
3.3. Influence of Farming Systems and Animal Species on Human Emotions
3.4. Influence of Demographic Factors and Eating Habits of the Participants on Human Emotions
3.5. Animal Welfare Perception and Human Emotions
3.6. Importance of Animal Welfare on Food Choices and Human Emotions
4. Discussion
4.1. Husbandry Systems, Animal Welfare and Human Emotions
4.2. Socio-Demographic Factors, Animal Welfare, and Human Emotions
4.3. Food Choices, Animal Welfare and Human Emotions
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Willer, H.; Travnicek, J.; Meier, C.; Schlatter, B. The World of Organic Agriculture: Statistics & Emerging Trends 2021; FiBL & IFOAM: Bonn, Germany, 2021; ISBN 9783037363935. [Google Scholar]
- Alonso, M.E.; González-Montaña, J.R.; Lomillos, J.M. Consumers’ Concerns and Perceptions of Farm Animal Welfare. Animals 2020, 10, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dawkins, M.S. Farm Animal Welfare: Beyond “Natural” Behavior. Science 2023, 379, 326–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cagienard, A.; Regula, G.; Danuser, J. The Impact of Different Housing Systems on Health and Welfare of Grower and Finisher Pigs in Switzerland. Prev. Veter Med. 2005, 68, 49–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dozier, W.A.; Thaxton, J.P.; Branton, S.L.; Morgan, G.W.; Miles, D.M.; Roush, W.B.; Lott, B.D.; Vizzier-Thaxton, Y. Stocking Density Effects on Growth Performance and Processing Yields of Heavy Broilers. Poult. Sci. 2005, 84, 1332–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Godyń, D.; Nowicki, J.; Herbut, P. Effects of Environmental Enrichment on Pig Welfare—A Review. Animals 2019, 9, 383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, M.B.; Studnitz, M.; Pedersen, L.J. The Effect of Type of Rooting Material and Space Allowance on Exploration and Abnormal Behaviour in Growing Pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2010, 123, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moinard, C.; Mendl, M.; Nicol, C.; Green, L. A Case Control Study of On-Farm Risk Factors for Tail Biting in Pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2003, 81, 333–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirovica, L.; Ritter, C.; Hendricks, J.; Weary, D.; Gulati, S.; von Keyserlingk, M. Public Attitude Toward and Perceptions of Dairy Cattle Welfare in Cow-Calf Management Systems Differing in Type of Social and Maternal Contact. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 3248–3268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Škrbić, Z.; Pavlovski, Z.; Lukić, M. Stocking Density—Factor of Production Performance, Quality and Broiler Welfare. Biotechnol. Anim. Husb. 2009, 25, 359–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sørensen, P.; Su, G.; Kestin, S.C. Effects of Age and Stocking Density on Leg Weakness in Broiler Chickens. Poult. Sci. 2000, 79, 864–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanciu, N.; Popescu-Micloșanu, E.; Tudorache, M. Study Regarding Rabbit Welfare Intensively Bred. Sci. Papers. Ser. D. Anim. Sci. 2015, 48, 334–338. [Google Scholar]
- Trocino, A.; Filiou, E.; Tazzoli, M.; Birolo, M.; Zuffellato, A.; Xiccato, G. Effects of Floor Type, Stocking Density, Slaughter Age and Gender on Productive and Qualitative Traits of Rabbits Reared in Collective Pens. Animal 2015, 9, 855–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Valkova, L.; Vecerek, V.; Voslarova, E.; Zavrelova, V.; Conte, F.; Semerad, Z. The Health and Welfare of Rabbits as Indicated by Post-Mortem Findings at the Slaughterhouse. Animals 2021, 11, 659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scott, K.; Chennells, D.; Campbell, F.; Hunt, B.; Armstrong, D.; Taylor, L.; Gill, B.; Edwards, S. The Welfare of Finishing Pigs in Two Contrasting Housing Systems: Fully-Slatted Versus Straw-Bedded Accommodation. Livest. Sci. 2006, 103, 104–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winckler, C.; Tucker, C.B.; Weary, D.M. Effects of Under- and Overstocking Freestalls on Dairy Cattle Behaviour. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2015, 170, 14–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lund, V.; Algers, B. Research on Animal Health and Welfare in Organic Farming—A Literature Review. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2003, 80, 55–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuyttens, F.; Heyndrickx, M.; De Boeck, M.; Moreels, A.; Van Nuffel, A.; Van Poucke, E.; Van Coillie, E.; Van Dongen, S.; Lens, L. Broiler Chicken Health, Welfare and Fluctuating Asymmetry in Organic Versus Conventional Production Systems. Livest. Sci. 2008, 113, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tonsor, G.T.; Olynk, N.J. Impacts of Animal Well-Being and Welfare Media on Meat Demand. J. Agric. Econ. 2011, 62, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ellison, B.; Brooks, K.; Mieno, T. Which Livestock Production Claims Matter most to Consumers? Agric. Hum. Values 2017, 34, 819–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annunziata, A.; Vecchio, R. Organic Farming and Sustainability in Food Choices: An Analysis of Consumer Preference in Southern Italy. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016, 8, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frewer, L.J.; Kole, A.; Van de Kroon, S.M.A.; de Lauwere, C. Consumer Attitudes Towards the Development of Animal-Friendly Husbandry Systems. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2005, 18, 345–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McEachern, M.G.; Willock, J. Producers and consumers of organic meat: A Focus on Attitudes and Motivations. Br. Food J. 2004, 106, 534–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phan-Huy, S.A.; Fawaz, R.B. Swiss Market for Meat from Animal-Friendly Production—Responses of Public and Private Actors in Switzerland. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2003, 16, 119–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velde, H.T.; Aarts, N.; Van Woerkum, C. Dealing with Ambivalence: Farmers’ and Consumers’ Perceptions of Animal Welfare in Livestock Breeding. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2002, 15, 203–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busch, G.; Spiller, A. Pictures in public communications about livestock farming. Anim. Front. 2018, 8, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Busch, G.; Schwetje, C.; Spiller, A. Bewertung Der Tiergerechtheit in Der Intensiven Hähnchenmast Durch Bürger Anhand von Bildern: Ein Survey Experiment. Ger. J. Agric. Econ. 2015, 64, 131–147. [Google Scholar]
- Gauly, S.; Müller, A.; Spiller, A.; Entwicklung, R. New Methods of Increasing Transparency: Does Viewing Webcam Pictures Change Peoples’ Opinions Towards Modern Pig Farming? IDEAS: Göttingen, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kühl, S.; Sonntag, W.I.; Gauß, N.; Gassler, B.; Spiller, A. Bürgereinstellungen Gegenüber Unterschiedlichen Haltungssystemen von Milchkühen, Mastschweinen Und Masthähnchen: Ein Systematischer Vergleich. J. Consum. Prot. Food Saf. 2018, 13, 145–236. [Google Scholar]
- Mormann, F.; Dubois, J.; Kornblith, S.; Milosavljevic, M.; Cerf, M.; Ison, M.; Tsuchiya, N.; Kraskov, A.; Quiroga, R.Q.; Adolphs, R.; et al. A Category-Specific Response to Animals in the Right Human Amygdala. Nat. Neurosci. 2011, 14, 1247–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schröter, I.; Mergenthaler, M. Emotional Response to Pictures of Farm Animals: Influence of Picture Content and Recipient Characteristics. Int. J. Food Syst. Dyn. 2023, 14, 177–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haidt, J. The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychol. Rev. 1995, 108, 814–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Honkanen, P.; Verplanken, B.; Olsen, S.O. Ethical values and motives driving organic food choice. J. Consum. Behav. 2006, 5, 420–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slack, N.J.; Sharma, S.; Cúg, J.; Singh, G. Factors forming consumer willingness to pay a premium for free-range eggs. Br. Food J. 2023, 125, 2439–2459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsakiridou, E.; Tsakiridou, H.; Mattas, K.; Arvaniti, E. Effects of animal welfare standards on consumers’ food choices. Food Econ.—Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. C 2010, 7, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solgaard, H.S.; Yang, Y.; Nguyen, T.T. An Investigation of Consumers’ Preference and Willingness to Pay for Fish Welfare in Denmark: A Discrete Choice Modeling Approach. Aquaculture 2023, 574, 739652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diverio, S.; Boccini, B.; Menchetti, L.; Bennett, P.C. The Italian perception of the ideal companion dog. J. Vet. Behav. Clin. Appl. Res. 2016, 12, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miele, M. Report Concerning Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Farm Animal Welfare; European Animal Welfare Platform: Brussels, Belgium, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Stampa, E.; Schipmann-Schwarze, C.; Hamm, U. Consumer perceptions, preferences, and behavior regarding pasture-raised livestock products: A review. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 82, 103872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arnott, G.; Ferris, C.P.; O’connell, N.E. Review: Welfare of Dairy Cows in Continuously Housed and Pasture-Based Production Systems. Animal 2017, 11, 261–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, C.J.C.; Beerda, B.; Knierim, U.; Waiblinger, S.; Lidfors, L.; Krohn, C.C.; Canali, E.; Valk, H.; Veissier, I.; Hopster, H. A Review of the Impact of Housing on Dairy Cow Behaviour, Health and Welfare. In Livestock Housing: Modern Management to Ensure Optimal Health and Welfare of Farm Animals; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 37–54. ISBN 9789086862177. [Google Scholar]
- Heijne, D.; Windhorst, H.-W. Farm Openings and Their Impacts on the Attitudes of the Visitors Towards Intensive Egg and Poultry Meat Production. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2016, 73, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ventura, B.A.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Wittman, H.; Weary, D.M. What Difference Does a Visit Make? Changes in Animal Welfare Perceptions after Interested Citizens Tour a Dairy Farm. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0154733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sweeney, S.; Regan, Á.; McKernan, C.; Benson, T.; Hanlon, A.; Dean, M. Current Consumer Perceptions of Animal Welfare across Different Farming Sectors on the Island of Ireland. Animals 2022, 12, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeMello, M. Rabbits Multiplying like Rabbits: The Rise in the Worldwide Popularity of Rabbits as Pets. In Companion Animals in Everyday Life: Situating Human-Animal Engagement within Cultures; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2016; pp. 91–107. ISBN 9781137595720. [Google Scholar]
- Mazzucchelli, F. The Birth of a Pet? The Rabbit. In Semiotics of Animals in Culture; Marrone, G., Mangano, D., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Volume 17, pp. 103–118. [Google Scholar]
- Verbeke, W.A.J.; Viaene, J. Ethical Challenges for Livestock Production: Meeting Consumer Concerns about Meat Safety and Animal Welfare. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2000, 12, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martelli, G. Consumers’ Perception of Farm Animal Welfare: An Italian and European Perspective. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 8, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herzog, H.A.; Betchart, N.S.; Pittman, R.B. Gender, Sex Role Orientation, and Attitudes toward Animals. Anthrozoos: A Mult discip. J. Interact. People Anim. 1991, 4, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Randler, C.; Adan, A.; Antofie, M.-M.; Arrona-Palacios, A.; Candido, M.; Pauw, J.B.-D.; Chandrakar, P.; Demirhan, E.; Detsis, V.; Di Milia, L.; et al. Animal Welfare Attitudes: Effects of Gender and Diet in University Samples from 22 Countries. Animals 2021, 11, 1893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W.; Van Poucke, E.; Tuyttens, F.A. Segmentation Based on Consumers’ Perceived Importance and Attitude toward Farm Animal Welfare. Int. J. Sociol. Food Agric. 2007, 15, 84–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cornish, A.; Raubenheimer, D.; McGreevy, P. What We Know about the Public’s Level of Concern for Farm Animal Welfare in Food Production in Developed Countries. Animals 2016, 6, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peek, C.W.; Bell, N.J.; Dunham, C.C. Gender, Gender Ideology, and Animal Rights Advocacy. Gend. Soc. 1996, 10, 464–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baron-Cohen, S.; Wheelwright, S.; Lawson, J.; Griffin, R.; Hill, J. The Exact Mind: Empathizing and Systemizing in Autism Spectrum Conditions. In The Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development; Goswami, U., Ed.; Blackwell Publishers: Malden, MA, USA, 2002; pp. 491–508. [Google Scholar]
- Kellert, S.R. Knowledge, Affection, and Basic Attitudes toward Animals in American Society: Phase III; Fish and Wildlife Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Kellert, S.R. Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behavior Toward Wildlife Among the Industrial Superpowers: United States, Japan, and Germany. J. Soc. Issues 1993, 49, 53–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellert, S.R. Urban American Perceptions of Animals and the Natural Environment. Urban Ecol. 1984, 8, 209–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kendall, H.A.; Lobao, L.M.; Sharp, J.S. Public Concern with Animal Well-Being: Place, Social Structural Location, and Individual Experience*. Rural. Sociol. 2006, 71, 399–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngo, K.M.; Hosaka, T.; Numata, S. The Influence of Childhood Nature Experience on Attitudes and Tolerance Towards Problem-Causing Animals in Singapore. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 41, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kellert, S.R. American Attitude Toward and Knowledge of Animals: An Update. In Advances in Animal Welfare Science; Fox, M.W., Mickley, L.D., Eds.; The Humane Society of the United States: Washington, DC, USA, 1984; pp. 177–213. [Google Scholar]
- Spooner, J.; Schuppli, C.; Fraser, D. Attitudes of Canadian Beef Producers Toward Animal Welfare. Anim. Welf. 2012, 21, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kidd, A.H.; Kidd, R.M. Factors in Adults’ Attitudes toward Pets. Psychol. Rep. 1989, 65, 903–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, E.; Serpell, J. Pets and the Development of Positive Attitudes to Animals. In Animals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives; Manning, A., Serpell, J., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 1994; pp. 127–144. [Google Scholar]
- Auger, B.; Amiot, C.E. Testing and Extending the Pets as Ambassadors Hypothesis: The Role of Contact with Pets and Recategorization Processes in Predicting Positive Attitudes toward Animals. Hum. Anim. Interact. Bull. 2017, 5, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boogaard, B.; Oosting, S.; Bock, B. Elements of Societal Perception of Farm Animal Welfare: A Quantitative Study in The Netherlands. Livest. Sci. 2006, 104, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Driscoll, J.W. Attitudes Toward Animal Use. Anthrozoos 1992, 5, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bowd, A.D. Fears and Understanding of Animals in Middle Childhood. J. Genet. Psychol. 1984, 145, 143–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furnham, A.; Heyes, C. Psuchology Students’ Beliefs about Animals and Animal Experimentation. Person. Individ. Diff. 1993, 15, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, E.S.A.; Serpell, J. Childhood Pet Keeping and Humane Attitudes in Young Adulthood. Anim. Welf. 1993, 2, 321–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serpell, J. Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Anim. Welf. 2004, 13, S145–S151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baldazzi, A.; Razzante, R.; Graziano, N.; Meazza, W.; Omizzolo, M.; Marinacci, C. Rapporto Italia 2017; Eurispes: Rome, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Preylo, B.D.; Arikawa, H. Comparison of Vegetarians and Non-Vegetarians on Pet Attitude and Empathy. Anthrozoos 2008, 21, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takooshian, H.; Weis, C. Assessing Attitudes Toward Animal Welfare Among Vegetarians and Omnivores: A pre-COVID analysis. Humanist. Psychol. 2023, 51, 218–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Backer, C.J.; Hudders, L. Meat Morals: Relationship Between Meat Consumption Consumer Attitudes Towards Human and Animal Welfare and Moral Behavior. Meat Sci. 2015, 99, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Greene-Finestone, L.; Campbell, M.; Evers, S.; Gutmanis, I. Attitudes and Health Behaviours of Young Adolescent Omnivores and Vegetarians: A School-Based Study. Appetite 2008, 51, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bilewicz, M.; Imhoff, R.; Drogosz, M. The Humanity of What We Eat: Conceptions of Human Uniqueness Among Vegetarians and Omnivores. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 41, 201–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liljenstolpe, C. Valuing Animal Welfare with Choice Experiments: An Application to Swedish Pig Production. In Proceedings of the 11th Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists, Copenhagen, Denmark, 24–27 August 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Norwood, F.B.; Lusk, J.L. A calibrated Auction-Conjoint Valuation Method: Valuing Pork and Eggs Produced under Differing animal Welfare Conditions. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2008, 62, 80–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vigors, B. Reducing the Consumer Attitude–Behaviour Gap in Animal Welfare: The Potential Role of ‘Nudges’. Animals 2018, 8, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, J.B.; Lusk, J.L.; Norwood, F.B. The Price of Happy Hens: A Hedonic Analysis of Retail Egg Prices. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2010, 35, 406–423. [Google Scholar]
- Riggio, G.; Piotti, P.; Diverio, S.; Borrelli, C.; Di Iacovo, F.; Gazzano, A.; Howell, T.J.; Pirrone, F.; Mariti, C. The Dog–Owner Relationship: Refinement and Validation of the Italian C/DORS for Dog Owners and Correlation with the LAPS. Animals 2021, 11, 2166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, N.; Signal, T. Empathy and Attitudes to Animals. Anthrozoos 2005, 18, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Auxier, B.; Anderson, M. Social Media Use in 2021; Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Lei, C.; Liu, D.; Li, W. Social Diffusion Analysis With Common-Interest Model for Image Annotation. IEEE Trans. Multimed. 2015, 18, 687–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nederhof, A.J. Methods of Coping with Social Desirability Bias: A Review. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1985, 15, 263–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larson, R.B. Controlling Social Desirability Bias. Int. J. Mark. Res. 2018, 61, 534–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lai, Y.; Boaitey, A.; Minegishi, K. Behind the Veil: Social Desirability Bias and Animal Welfare Ballot Initiatives. Food Policy 2022, 106, 102184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busch, G.; Gauly, S.A.; Spiller, A. Ich Sehe Was, Was Du Nicht Siehst: Eine Eye-Tracking Studie Zur Betrachtung Und Bewetung von Bildern Aus Der Schweinemast. Ger. J. Agric. Econ. 2017, 66, 65–78. [Google Scholar]
- Busch, G.; Gauly, S.; von Meyer-Höfer, M.; Spiller, A. Does picture Background Matter? People’s Evaluation of Pigs in Different Farm Settings. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0211256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suk, H.-J.; Irtel, H. Emotional Response to Color Across Media. Color Res. Appl. 2010, 35, 64–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilms, L.; Oberfeld, D. Color and Emotion: Effects of Hue, Saturation, and Brightness. Psychol. Res. 2018, 82, 896–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathur, M.B.; Peacock, J.; Reichling, D.B.; Nadler, J.; Bain, P.A.; Gardner, C.D.; Robinson, T.N. Interventions to Reduce Meat Consumption by Appealing to Animal Welfare: Meta-Analysis and Evidence-Based Recommendations. Appetite 2021, 164, 105277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rothgerber, H. “But I Don’t Eat that Much Meat”: Situational Underreporting of Meat Consumption by Women. Soc. Anim. 2019, 27, 150–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trethewey, E.; Jackson, M. Values and Cognitive Mechanisms: Comparing the Predictive Factors of Australian Meat Intake. Appetite 2019, 142, 104386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bouwman, E.P.; Bolderdijk, J.W.; Onwezen, M.C.; Taufik, D. “Do You Consider Animal Welfare to Be Important?” Activating Cognitive Dissonance via Value Activation Can Promote Vegetarian Choices. J. Env. Psychol. 2022, 83, 101871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Food of Animal Origin | Weekly Consumption | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Never | Up to Two Times a Week | Up to Four Times a Week | Every Day | |
Bovine meat | 124 (15.0%) | 670 (80.8%) | 28 (3.4%) | 7 (0.8%) |
Poultry meat | 94 (11.3%) | 379 (45.7%) | 346 (41.7%) | 10 (1.2%) |
Rabbit meat | 709 (85.5%) | 112 (13.5%) | 6 (0.7%) | 2 (0.2%) |
Pork meat | 151 (18.2%) | 615 (74.2%) | 53 (6.4%) | 10 (1.2%) |
Eggs | 60 (7.2%) | 674 (81.3%) | 82 (9.9%) | 13 (1.6%) |
Milk | 257 (31.0%) | 113 (13.6%) | 58 (7.0%) | 401 (48.4%) |
Farming System | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intensive | Extensive | ||||
Mean ± SE | p Value | Mean ± SE | p Value | ||
Gender | Female | −0.96 a ± 0.10 | 0.045 | 0.88 a ± 0.05 | 0.001 |
Male | −0.86 b ± 0.10 | 0.96 b ± 0.04 | |||
Age | <25 years | −0.86 ± 0.12 | 0.135 | 0.93 ± 0.06 | 0.590 |
25–40 ys | −0.84 ± 0.11 | 0.89 ± 0.05 | |||
40–55 ys | −1.06 ± 0.12 | 0.93 ± 0.06 | |||
>55 ys | −0.87 ± 0.15 | 0.93 ± 0.07 | |||
Study | Primary | −0.88 ± 0.13 | 0.087 | 0.95 ab ± 0.06 | <0.001 |
Middle | −1.06 ± 0.12 | 0.83 a ± 0.06 | |||
High school | −0.82 ± 0.10 | 0.85 a ± 0.05 | |||
University degree | −0.90 ± 0.10 | 0.94 ab ± 0.05 | |||
Postgraduate | −0.88 ± 0.15 | 1.05 b ± 0.07 | |||
Residence * | Village | −0.99 a ± 0.10 | 0.043 | 0.97 a ± 0.05 | 0.003 |
Small town | −0.94 ab ± 0.09 | 0.94 a ± 0.04 | |||
City | −0.80 b ± 0.11 | 0.85 b ± 0.05 | |||
Job | Student | −0.84 ± 0.12 | 0.054 | 0.95 ± 0.05 | 0.873 |
Employee | −1.00 ± 0.10 | 0.92 ± 0.05 | |||
Artisan | −0.97 ± 0.15 | 0.88 ± 0.07 | |||
Work with animals | −0.93 ± 0.16 | 0.97 ± 0.08 | |||
Homemaker | −0.41 ± 0.01 | 0.96 ± 0.07 | |||
Freelancers/entrepreneurs | −1.11 ± 0.16 | 0.93 ± 0.08 | |||
Teachers/professors | −0.58 ± 0.21 | 0.81 ± 0.10 | |||
Unemployed | −0.63 ± 0.17 | 0.90 ± 0.08 | |||
Retired | −1.24 ± 0.17 | 0.94 ± 0.08 | |||
Other | −0.86 ± 0.28 | 0.93 ± 0.13 | |||
Family structure (num. of members) | 1 | −1.17 a ± 0.14 | <0.001 | 0.92 ± 0.06 | 0.970 |
2 | −0.71 b ± 0.12 | 0.93 ± 0.06 | |||
>2 | −0.84 b ± 0.10 | 0.92 ± 0.05 | |||
Animal at home | Yes | −1.30 a ± 0.17 | <0.001 | 0.97 ± 0.08 | 0.167 |
No | −0.51 b ± 0.07 | 0.87 ± 0.03 | |||
Animals in the past | Never owned | −0.87 ± 0.10 | 0.201 | 0.83 a ± 0.05 | <0.001 |
Owned in the past | −0.95 ± 0.09 | 1.01 b ± 0.04 | |||
Vegetarian/vegan | Yes | −0.92 a ± 0.03 | <0.001 | 0.66 a ± 0.02 | <0.001 |
No | −0.80 b ± 0.01 | 0.94 b ± 0.01 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Riggio, G.; Angori, E.; Menchetti, L.; Diverio, S. The Link between the Perception of Animal Welfare and the Emotional Response to Pictures of Farm Animals Kept in Intensive and Extensive Husbandry Systems: An Italian Survey. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 652. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10110652
Riggio G, Angori E, Menchetti L, Diverio S. The Link between the Perception of Animal Welfare and the Emotional Response to Pictures of Farm Animals Kept in Intensive and Extensive Husbandry Systems: An Italian Survey. Veterinary Sciences. 2023; 10(11):652. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10110652
Chicago/Turabian StyleRiggio, Giacomo, Elisabetta Angori, Laura Menchetti, and Silvana Diverio. 2023. "The Link between the Perception of Animal Welfare and the Emotional Response to Pictures of Farm Animals Kept in Intensive and Extensive Husbandry Systems: An Italian Survey" Veterinary Sciences 10, no. 11: 652. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10110652